The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [1].

---

Indestructible (Disturbed album)[edit]

Nominator(s): --The Guy _complain ^edits

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel very little can be done to expand it, and it is at its best potential right now, which I feel is FA potential. It is perhaps not as lengthy as other FA articles, but it covers all significant points, its prose is perhaps professional or near professional, it is well-referenced, and neutral. In summary, I feel this article is ready to be a featured article and I welcome any constructive criticism. Please note that I'm also, in part, opening this nomination to see if there's anything that can be done to significantly improve the quality of the article. If there is not, then I feel this article should be passed. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.

Yes, the titles of the links in the references shouldn't have anything in all capitals. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/100582-disturbed-announce-new-single-indestructible-uk-tour.html
  • http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4594154,00.html
  • http://acharts.us/album/36092

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it says that the site "has its roots in" this site. (AKA they used to be one site, but it branched off). Right on the homepage of MusicSquare it has a "BECOME AN EDITOR" button. That's all I can find for right now. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other word? --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-disturbed12-2008jul12,0,478489.story deadlinks

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify what you mean by link titles? As in the titles themselves in referencing? If so, I'm on it after I get a reply.
  • • http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/100582-disturbed-announce-new-single-indestructible-uk-tour.html -- Removed
    • http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4594154,00.html -- Removed
    • http://acharts.us/album/36092 -- This one is a bit tricky. I cannot prove its worthiness as a source, or maybe I can. If there's anything I can do to, tell me. But, anyways, I believe it SHOULD stay, because if you look on most of those charts listed there, as of about a week ago, they were still on those charts with their peak positions listed, and the source has it all correct and accurate, we simply must use it instead of the actual charts, because the charts are modified over time, pushing the album off so it won't be listed.
      • Just a quick note on this. All of those charts that are cited with this reference can be replaced by references found in the Year Zero (album) article (and numerous discog FLs and other album FAs). Look at refs 42-44, and 71-77. - Yohhans ^talk 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed dead link.

Thank you for your assessment, and please reply at a time convenient for you. :) --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is too short. Split to paragraphs, summarise full article, etc. Check out some recent album FAs for examples.
  • Done.
• Without a critical analysis of those alternate covers, they fail WP:NFCC as they don't significantly enhance reader understanding
  • I don't understand at a glance, but I'll check the link.
• http://www.tunelabmusic.com/2008/06/12/review-disturbed-indestructible/ - what makes Nick's views notable as an industry critic? Or, in other words, who is Nick?
  • Review deleted.
• "After the record cycle of Ten Thousand Fists" - context needed, readers shouldn't be forced to click the link to find out what Ten Thousand Fists is.
  • Added context.
• If the entire first paragraph of Recording and production is cited to ref 5, you can (except for the direct quotes, which need a source right after them) just use the one ref at the end of the paragraph.
  • Same in other paragraphs.
    • Done, but may still need to be done in a few other places. If so, please direct me.
• "Draiman began to write lyrics for each song.[5] Draiman commented" - try and avoid repetition of names
  • ...and of other stuff, eg. "break" early in paragraph 1
    • Done
• "This album took the longest to name" - I personally dislike the use of "this album", I'd just use the album title here
  • Done
• "to complete production process,[5] and had defined the musical direction the band wanted to use with this record" - maybe "to be produced in full" or something like that, and I'd also cut the last three words
  • Re-worded, to something a little different from your suggestion.
• In general, try and cut down on the amount of quoting used (in favour of your own words).
  • I will try and do that.
• "on Disturbed's official MySpace" - if it's theirs, it's official... cut the redundant word
  • "on Disturbed's official website" - again (and this happens a few days... do a Ctrl+F for "official" and check each one)
    • Done.
• "is actually an early song" - clarify that this means it was written early in their career
  • Clarified.
• "sixty radio stations,[11] and was released" - I'd end the sentence, then start the next one with "It was released..."
  • Done.
• "quickly rising to #1 on the charts" - preferably write it in full (number one), check this throughout (except on chart tables)
  • Done throughout article.
• fix these dablinks
  • Links piped.
• The short paragraphs in the Musical and lyrical themes section don't look particularly professional... merge, expand, whatever.
  • Merged into two paragraphs.
• "says 411mania writer Dan Marsicano" - check MOS:ITALICS; it's a website so it shouldn't have them, I believe
  • Same for allmusic, about.com, etc. - check the lot
    • Done throughout.
• Might want to mention the album's score on Metacritic (57%..... not too great.... from what I heard of it I'd agree, though...!)
  • Mentioned the score at the heading of the criticism section. "The album did, however receive criticism. It received a score of 57% on Metacritic, and..."
• ""The band uses this opportunity to their advantage, utilizing a more aggressive and gloomier sound than their previous album, while sticking with the melodic sound that has helped to pave their way to success."" - says who, in what context???
  • Dan Marsicano says so :). Fixed.
• "Singer David Draiman says Indestructible is Disturbed's darkest record yet — it was partly inspired by the band's experiences performing for troops overseas — and he does his best to back up the drama" - stuff like this could be used in the production/themes sections
  • Unfortunately, due to two archived consensuses, the Rolling Stone review has been determined to not pass WP:RS.

Giggy (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've satisfied you, have I? If there's anything else, do tell! --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are getting at with the alternate covers now. Ask yourself, what is the significance of the regular album cover? And there you have your significance -- All three are in retailers, save for the limited edition, which is out of print. Although, the "Promotion" section goes into detail describing the Limited Edition package, so there is some significance there, and it mentions the Special Edition version briefly. The special edition is also in retailers, though, so I believe it to have the same significance as the others. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• The additional album covers seem unnecessary (Remember our minimum use policy). They are largely identical to the album cover, and as such don't convey any further information to the reader. Further, record labels often release many "special editions" of albums; there's no need to include each of their album covers. indopug (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the additional covers, then. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No mention of the album sales figures and chart performance anywhere in the body of the article. Note that per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise everything already present in the body in the article. So a paragraph/section regarding the sales and charting (in prose form) needs to be added.
  • I will add sales figures and chart performance to the Reception section.
• What is "Mediabase's Active Rock chart"? Is it even a reliable source to warrant mention in a Wikipedia article let alone be mentioned in the lead?
  • I didn't mean to include the word "Mediabase's." I will remove that word. The Active Rock chart is a chart where rock songs chart, and the single Inside the Fire remained at #1 for fourteen consecutive weeks. That's quite notable.
• A sound sample or two (at low quality and < 10% of the song's full length) wouldn't be out of place. They provide a clear understanding of the music that words alone cannot.
  • I don't know anything about uploading song samples, and I also do not understand how that would benefit the article. Mind a bit of clarification in that matter?
• Who is credited with writing all those songs? See this.
  • Writing the music, or the lyrics? I'm sure you mean every little detail, music, lyrics, et cetera, so I will add them.
• What is a "Record cycle"?
  • A "record cycle" is the cycle of creating a record, releasing it, and then touring in promotion of it. That choice of words came from the "Making of Indestructible" DVD and I will change/clarify it.
• The Promotion section seems a tad too detailed for my liking. There are far too many detailed dates and I'm not sure if every small thing they did to promote the album needs to be included (such as posting a song on their MySpace). This is supposed to be a scholarly article that is geared towards the general reader, so too much detail is unnecessary.
  • I think the dates would be necessary, but believe me when I say it could go much more detailed. I did give a brief summary in comparison to every promotion event that happened. I will remove information about the video trailer, and the artwork and track listing being revealed, though.

indopug (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit all of these as soon as I save this page. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick-fail—1a. This needs more work than can be done in the limited time available on this list. Please remove it and resubmit after a couple of weeks.
• Third sentence: "It was recorded in Chicago, Illinois, at Groovemaster Studios, and the band feels it is their most textural, and darkest work to date." Erck. two ", and"s. The band feels, do they? Would rather not such a POV wording right at the top—why not just state it here, and cite it further down in the main text. It will have to be cited somewhere, anyway.
  • Fixed the two "ands" and eliminated the POV sentence.
• "The album features two songs that were previously written by Disturbed, but never mixed into an album, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." This sentence structure is very poor, isn't it.
  • It was poor, I tried to fix and expand it.
• It "received" sales? "Sales" x 2.
  • "it shipped over 253,000 units in its opening week" Changed wording.
• Probably "remains" allows you to remove "consecutive", yes?
  • Indeed it does, and it would be vice-versa as well.
• "took a break for about a month"—hate the up-front fuzziness.
  • Fixed it with the vague, yet more certain, "took a break."
• Use ellipsis dots to save our readers from the appalling expression in the quote: "since the beginning, the start of the this band"—"since the ... start of the this band. I'd use just three periods, not that spaced-out symbol. And to continue the quote: "It's always been riffs; something musically that I'll come up with." Um ... what does it mean?
  • I fixed the quote, and attempted to explain the whole "riffs" and "something musically" thing more in-depth, although I do not feel satisfied with the final product of the clarification, so I will attempt it again.

Tony (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else is wrong with it, as you stated more is wrong with it than can be fixed in the short time, so surely you have other issues? Please state them, all of them. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've provided ample illustration of why the nomination was premature. It is unfair to other nominators and strains our limited resources for reviewing to suck in free advice such as you're attempting to. I don't copy-edit articles, and reviewers are under no obligation to do so. We judge, assess, critique—and you might consider not trying to game the system here. Please withdraw the nomination and work on it in a timeframe of your own choice. Tony (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't catch your meaning, but it seems like you're trying to accuse me of something. Please, assume good faith, I was not trying to do anything wrong, nor am I, I am just wondering why you would think it fails, because you are the only editor who has blatantly said that thus far. (Although I'm sure others think it.) I just don't follow the ample illustration, but perhaps I don't understand the nomination process, then. I was under the impression users submit the articles here for constructive criticism, and if there is nothing to criticize, the article is elected. That's in simple terms, of course. I also do not understand your statement about "we do not copy-edit articles." Please explain? Do you mean you do not take advice and edit accordingly here? If so, I might just be mistaken about the nomination process. The nom page says this, "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." That is my intention with this nom -- To generate and resolve critical comments. That's how I interpret it, anyways. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "A self-produced effort, Indestructible is the first Disturbed album that did not feature Johnny K as producer." So what is the significance of this line? Why mention Johnny K?
  • Because he produced the first three Disturbed records. This is significant, (in my opinion) because he gave Disturbed two consecutive number-one albums, and he also produced their first album, which is their top-selling record. Now I think its significant to mention him for two reasons. One; this is Disturbed's first time without a producer, and they've only had one previous producer, who has been with them for their previous albums. To me that's almost as significant as Steve Kmak's departure for Ten Thousand Fists, Disturbed's previous album. Two; one of the reviews sourced here say that the lack of Johnny K's guidance on the album, in short, made Disturbed a little too confident of themselves, and I've seen several other reviews (non-professional) state this as well. Also, I might add, this is Disturbed's first album without him, but it still was another straight number-one debut, and it went gold, still.
    • Yep. I was thinking also that he produced some of the band's previous albums. However, reading that phrase alone, non-Disturbed fan will likely to ask why Johnny has to be in the lead? Maybe a little info to add? At least for clarity. --Efe (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried my best to clarify that in the lead, now, "A self-produced effort, Indestructible is the first Disturbed album that did not feature Johnny K, the producer of Disturbed's previous three albums, The Sickness, Believe, and Ten Thousand Fists." Is that clarified to satisfaction? --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its fine now but I suggest to put the period after "Disturbed's previous three albums". Adding those albums would be too much. --Efe (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree; someone here stated that would be vague. (not on the same subject, but similar.) Allow me to explain. As you said, some non-Disturbed fans might just read this. After reading that, they might go "What are the first three albums?" See my point? They should not have to search for what the first three albums were, and that's my intention there. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The main concern is to back up that Johnny stuff why he has to be in the lead. To add those albums is too much for a lead and since its their fourth album, the readers will no longer want to know what are those three albums since all previous albums were produced by Johnny. If you want to add them, maybe somewhere below. --Efe (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album features two songs that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, but were never previously featured on an album. Those songs are titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." I think it would be better to just write these lines below? I see no significance of it in the lead.
  • In the "Making of Indestructible" DVD, they made an entire chapter devoted to those two songs, so I figured they'd be significant enough to add. Possible bad judgment on my part, but you're the first one to make a comment about it, so maybe not. I also figure, at least "Perfect Insanity" is good enough for a spot in the lead section, for a couple of reasons. One; this is an official single, two; this song originally appeared in 2002, on the band's home DVD, M.O.L. as a song they recorded back in 1998, to help them get signed to a label. I could note that in the article, if that's what it takes for inclusion in the lead. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "and remained in the top ten for five weeks" I think this is too much for a lead?
  • I agree. Long story short, I wanted to avoid an edit war so I allowed it to stay. I'll remove it now.
• Uhm, the lead isn't complete. I can see no info about the "Musical and lyrical themes".
  • Added some things about the themes of the album, mainly just lyrical themes, and one statement about musical themes otherwise. "The album features significantly darker themes than any of Disturbed's previous work. Many of the lyrical themes are about relationships that didn't work out, about a car accident vocalist David Draiman was in, and even one about suicide. To match the aggressive attitude of said themes, Draiman told the other band members to create darker, more textural music than they have before. On the other hand, the title track, "Indestructible", is a song meant to encourage troops fighting in wars, to make them feel strong." --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Efe (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image Image:Johntrackinginsidethefire.PNG fails under WP:NFCC criterion number 8. --Efe (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I thought it might be significant because it illustrated that John did indeed come back to the studio, which is not in words on the article. Is that a significant enough purpose; to illustrate a point which is not mentioned in the section? Also, the image is a free screenshot. The video is posted in the media section of their website, so I'm assuming it was free to use. Could be wrong. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is non-free, so it must be fair use. --Efe (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, but what about the significance I stated? --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think it fails. Its just a mere image of John Mayer. Who knows if, in that picture, he's in the studio? That image alone do not add/increase understanding. --Efe (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well then we shall find one that does not. Muwahahahahhahahah! No, all evil laughing aside, I'll remove the image, it's no trouble! :) Also, I'm about to expand the Reception section a tad bit, adding IGN writer Jim Kaz's criticism of the guitar solos featured on this album; I feel that's significant. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make due adjustments to everything. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.